Template talk:Infobox film/Archive 8

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Choreography

Would it be a good idea to have the option of adding the choreographer's name to the infobox for films with many large-scale dance numbers (i.e. musicals)? Dan (talk) 18:06, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I second that suggestion. MovieMadness (talk) 21:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I would support that as long as the template instructions made it clear that it's for films with notable usage (or something to that effect) - in other words, people listed as "Choreographer" for films with minor choreography notability (in reference to the film itself) would not be in the infobox. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 22:08, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Because I work a lot with articles about musical films, I think this would be useful as well -- has anyone undertaken to do it? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 20:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Additional editors

There's confusion about the listing of "additional editors". imdb considers additional editors to be part of the editorial crew, and additional editors are not eligible for Oscar consideration, etc.. However, fans of additional editors like to include them on imdb and on Wikipedia in the infobox under the "editing = " parameter. I'm suggesting that additional editors should be listed in the infobox if desired, but that the listing be tagged "(addl)". I'll change the documentation shortly if there aren't any objections. Easchiff(talk) 17:38, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Here's an illustration of the possible table entry:

Parameter	Explanation
`editing`	Insert the name(s) of the editor(s). Separate multiple entries with a line break (`<br />`). If a credit for an "additional editor" is shown, add the tag "(addl)". Link each editor to his/her article if possible.

Easchiff(talk) 18:40, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Additions

I would like to see two categories added to the infobox: Based on, so the writer(s) of the source material are listed separately from the screenwriter(s) listed under Written by, and Costume design. Thank you. MovieMadness (talk) 21:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Let's discuss this first before formally requesting a protected edit. Is there some reason why the current writing situation isn't working? After all, most films deal with it using parentheticals. Changing the parameters will require a massive number of article edits to bring it up to date, and will not add any information that isn't already made clear. As for costume design, it seems relatively reasonable. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 22:12, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I didn't know I was "formally requesting a protected edit," I just followed the instructions at the top of this page! I thought this was the discussion. Why should an addition require "changing the parameters [of] a massive number of article edits to bring it up to date"? Why not just let what's been written remain as is and new articles follow the enhanced format? (Following your train of thought, do you expect every infobox to be updated if "Costume design," which you agree "seems relatively reasonable," is added?) Just because most films deal with the writing credits using parentheticals doesn't make it an accurate way to list them. Screen credits traditionally read "Written by ABC" followed by "Based on the novel, play, etc. by XYZ." I just thought the infobox should be similar, that's all. MovieMadness (talk) 22:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Adding Costume Design is simply adding new information that has not existed before. It will not effect the tables as they currently exist. Changing the already existing field for "written by" will alter already existing information and will require that every film infobox that has this info (and we are talking tens of thousands at the minimum) will need to be individually altered. Not altering old ones simply leaves a mishmash of editing styles and, as unlikely as it is that we will ever fully achieve it, we are striving for uniformity in the look of our film pages. MarnetteD | Talk 23:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Just because most films deal with the writing credits using parentheticals doesn't make it an accurate way to list them. How would it not be accurate? The parenthetical contains the information. This, so far, has been standard practice. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 03:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

IMDb interwiki link

{{editprotected}} Seems there is an interwiki link for the IMDb.

'''[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt{{{imdb_id|}}}/ IMDb profile]'''

should become

'''[[IMDbTitle:{{{imdb_id|}}}|IMDb profile]]'''

-- Ned Scott 19:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Not done. This seems like a bad idea to me and definitely needs to be discussed before implementing. We don't generally use interwiki links this way in articles or templates used in the mainspace. Think about the problems this would create for mirrors and forks, for example. Prolog (talk) 20:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The interwiki link was made for use on the article namespace. I can see your point about the mirrors. I'll bring it up on meta:Talk:Interwiki map. -- Ned Scott 01:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Optional "name" attribute

I've been going through infoboxes for a while adding the ability to make the "name" or "title" attribute optional. This way, it can be left off entirely if the article title matches the name of the film.

Change to be made:

{{{name}}}

becomes

{{{name|{{PAGENAME}}}}}

(As an aside, is it really necessary to have full protection on this? Wouldn't semiprot do?) Chris Cunningham (talk) 09:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

To answer your question, 28,092 current transclusions would be why the template is fully protected. I'll leave the request up for a bit longer. matt br 10:48, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

high number of transclusions shouldn't automatically mean preventing the community from editing. If the template had a history of edit warring between registered members I'd understand, but most of the past problems were by anons from what I can see. {{Infobox Person}} isn't fully protected, and it doesn't seem to cause major havoc to the project. Chris Cunningham (talk) 11:35, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but high number of transclusions= protected from editing. Any vandalism would be seen on 30,000 different pages, and the server load would be enormous. See Wikipedia:High-risk templates for more info. Woody (talk) 19:37, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, okay, I get it. So how's about someone actually does the requested janitorial action? It's pretty standard across quite a few infoboxen now. Chris Cunningham (talk) 19:48, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Done, since I don't anticipate any objection to the change. Let me know if I'm wrong. ;) Will update documentation in a bit, but feel free to tinker with that. – Luna Santin (talk) 07:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Rating

Why isn't there a section for the MPAA rating of the film? Particularly considering all of the other details that are included. 67.128.143.196 (talk) 02:03, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

The number of different ratings can get pretty large, so this task is done in another box at Template:Infobox movie certificates. -- Ned Scott 02:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Independence Day (film)#Reception is also a good example of how the ratings box fits nicely into sections like "Reception", rather than at the top. -- Ned Scott 02:10, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I was about to ask the same question (as 67.128.143.196) myself. What about merely including a link to that section? E.g., add an anchor tag to Template:Infobox movie certificates and then a parameter for this template such as ratingsbox=name to produce a link in the infobox such as "Ratings (Details)". --Stratadrake (talk) 20:12, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Writers

Why is "Writer" the only option for screenwriters? It seems like this is inadequate for most movies. Most articles have dealt with this by using parentheticals, but this seems a rather sloppy way of handling it. At minimum it seems like we should have the following options:

writer (resolves to Written by, as it does now)
screenplay (=Screenplay by)
story (=Story by)

And there should probably be something along the lines of:

source (=Based on)

This would be for films based on novels, plays, television series, etc. Although I wonder if there should be a separate line for the source's original author. (Otherwise it would presumably be broken into two lines.)

This could apply to hundreds of films easily and would not break existing infoboxes using the old format. (In fact, the "writer" field should be preserved either way as a simple option for films that do not have separate story/screenplay credits.) An example of the suggested format is given below using the Star Trek: First Contact credits:

Currently:

| writer = '''TV series "[[Star Trek: The Original Series|Star Trek]]"''' [[Gene Roddenberry]] '''Story''' [[Rick Berman]] [[Brannon Braga]] [[Ronald D. Moore]] '''Screenplay''' [[Brannon Braga]] [[Ronald D. Moore]]

Would become:

| screenplay = [[Brannon Braga]] [[Ronald D. Moore]]
| story = [[Rick Berman]] [[Brannon Braga]] [[Ronald D. Moore]]
| source = ''[[Star Trek: The Original Series|Star Trek]]'' Created by [[Gene Roddenberry]]

Seems a whole lot cleaner to me. Thoughts? --Roger McCoy/រ៉ាចើ (talk) 02:15, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this setup would look cleaner, as most films whose articles I edit have some kind of source material. However, I'm less sure about the "story" attribute -- that's something I see less often as a stand-alone credit. It's usually the screenwriter and the source material. Perhaps we can keep the general "writer" attribute to cover those who have conceived of the story and those who actually penned it, then refer to the "source" attribute for where it all came from. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 04:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Just to give a few examples of films that have (or should have, based on the film's credits) separate story/screenplay credits:

Batman, Batman Begins, Batman Beyond: Return of the Joker, Batman Forever, Batman: Mystery of the Batwoman, Batman Returns, *batteries not included, Benny & Joon, A Bug's Life, Cars, Chicken Run, Clue, Cool Runnings, The Dark Knight, Edward Scissorhands, Encino Man, Finding Nemo, Flushed Away, Forbidden Planet, The Fugitive, Galaxy Quest, The Goonies, The Greatest Show on Earth, Groundhog Day, Hook, Hulk, Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, Innerspace, Labyrinth, Mad City, Men in Black II, Mission: Impossible, Monsters, Inc., Mr. Deeds, Mr. Deeds Goes to Town, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, A Prairie Home Companion, Raiders of the Lost Ark, Ratatouille, Star Trek: The Motion Picture, Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home, Star Trek V: The Final Frontier, Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country, Star Trek Generations, Star Trek: First Contact, Star Trek: Insurrection, Star Trek Nemesis, The Sugarland Express, Superman, Superman II, Superman IV: The Quest for Peace, The Terminal, Titan A.E., Toy Story, Toy Story 2, Twilight Zone: The Movie, A Very Brady Sequel, X-Men, X2, Yellow Submarine, and Ziegfeld Girl.

I'm sure there are many, many more. The inconsistent listings on these show the need for a separate story credit. (I guess the "Screenplay" credit could be left alone as the primary writing credit, although I personally would prefer less ambiguity.) Several of these movies are listed with the screenplay/story credits combined with no clear distinction between the two. The others are inconsistently listed.--Roger McCoy/រ៉ាចើ (talk) 07:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Randomly choosing some of the films, I notice that there is a lot of redundancy with names under the story and screenplay credits. This is my concern, since the infobox is supposed to provide a succinct overview of the film. I understand your argument for the specific assignment of credits to the appropriate persons, but I think that this is too much of a breakdown that adds extraneous text to the infobox. I'm not totally sure about a "source=" attribute either since the infobox is rather narrow, where the source material's long title would fit better in the lead section. Wikipedia tries to be more than just a list of cast and crew information, so I think that writing credits should be elaborated in the body of the article. I'm trying to think of a different way to re-format the infobox to differentiate a little better without redundantly repeating names. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not really convinced this is redundant, though. If the writer is listed as both, they are serving different roles in the film's production. If the screenplay/story credits are exactly the same, then it would be redundant to list both, but in many of these cases there isn't even a single shared name between the two. Even if there is a shared name, I think that this makes the difference between the roles all the more important to point out, since the current method seems very ambiguous. In any case, many of these pages currently list the full story and screenplay credits separately already, meaning that this wouldn't create any additional "redundancy"; it would simply smooth out the formatting. --Roger McCoy/រ៉ាចើ (talk) 18:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree (In fact thats what I just came here to suggest) that optional Story by and Screenplay by fields should be added. Written by should be kept since that is how credit is usually given when it is the same person. But as noted above when multiple writers are involved it is not uncommon for the credit to be divided, and we should have a consistent way to handle those films.

As for Based on (called source above) I think that is a good idea as well. None of the three fields will cause any problems with existing articles either, as they are new additions. —MJBurrage^(T•C) 22:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Distributors

The Painted Hills is one of eight MGM films that are now in the public domain because MGM neglected to file the copyright renewal forms. As such, no less than 8 companies have distributed the film on VHS or DVD, so I'm confused as to what to put under distributor? Do I just list MGM which did the theatrical release, or should all of the VHS and DVD releasers also be listed? AnmaFinotera (talk) 22:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

MGM would be best, since it was the primary distributor for the film. The others are secondary. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

hCalendar syntax

{{editprotect}} The template is set up to include hCalendar info ("vevent" class), but some particular fields could be defined to take advantage of this format:

{{!}} {{{released}}}

could become

{{!}} <span class="dtstart ">{{{released}}}</span>

{{!}} {{{distributor}}}

could become

{{!}} <span class="organiser">{{{distributor}}}</span>

{{!}} {{{runtime}}}

Could become

{{!}} <span class="duration">{{{runtime}}}</span>

Currently, only the movie title ({{{name}}}) is used as "summary". See hcalendar-cheatsheet for more parameters. --Qyd (talk) 00:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Forgive me for being a bit slow, but what would the practical reason for doing so be? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 07:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Not done Come up with a precise set of the changes you want to make, test them in the sandbox, and add the editprotected tag once you can be certain that these changes will work where you want them to, and not break the template in unexpected circumstances. Happy‑melon 16:52, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

GS, vevent is a microformat that can be used by web-spiders to gather this kind of info and sort/organize it; Similarly, firefox "operator" plug-in can read the data and export it to third party programs (such as MS outlook or Apple iCalendar), see hCalendar.

Happy, here's a sandbox with the changes, and here is a testcase. The changes do not modify the aspect or rendering of any transclusion, but an extractable dataset is additionally available. In this testcase, it would be

BEGIN:VCALENDAR
PRODID:
X-ORIGINAL-URL:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Qyd/Temp
X-WR-CALNAME:
VERSION:2.0
METHOD:PUBLISH
BEGIN:VEVENT
DESCRIPTION;CHARSET=UTF-8:Directed by Joel Coen Ethan Coen
LOCATION;CHARSET=UTF-8:United States
SUMMARY;CHARSET=UTF-8:No Country for Old Men
UID:
DTSTART;VALUE=DATE:20071109
DTSTAMP:19701209T000000Z
END:VEVENT
END:VCALENDAR

No problem if this changes will not be implemented, it's just that the existing code ("vevent" class, with the two fields "summary" (name) and "description" (director)) is not complete without the mandatory "dstart" field, per the hcalendar specifications. In the linked sandbox, I added dstart, location and organizer. url (for official website) and uid (for IMDB ID) could also be added (with some effort). --Qyd (talk) 04:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

TCM database

I've been editing quite a few movie articles lately, and I've found the TCM database to be very helpful and a very solid source of information, especially production information, much of which is not available on IMDB. Overall, it's at least as valuable as IMDB, and certainly better than All Movie Guide, which frequently doesn't have much information at all.

I'd like to suggest that a link for the TCM database number be added to the template. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 20:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

As a replacement for the AMG link, perhaps, but I would be opposed to simply adding it to the template. The infobox shouldn't become a repository of external links. That's not what it's for. PC78 (talk) 20:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Either way, as an add or a replacement. I don't find the AMG all that helpful, usually. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 21:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Academy Awards and other awards

I have recently reviewed certian arctiles about Academy Award winning films, including Best Picture, and I found it difficult to distinguish the films as Academy Award winners, even Best Picture. I made an icon or image of an Oscar and have placed it next to some infoboxes from articles about Academy Award winning films, as a way of making easier for a reader to recognize the image and identify the film as being an Academy Award winner almost instantly. I believe that should bee used more often with Academy Award winning films. I also noticed that there was no section in the Infobox about film that listed the awards the film has won. Even though there is a seperate infobox for awards, I think that including a section listing the awards in the Infobox about film, would be more recognizable. Please take this proposal under consideration, Thanks. Jughead.z(1) (talk) 22:40, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I do not support this. This is English Wikipedia, not American Wikipedia. Placing the AMPAS image in the Infobox without including reference to other awards shifts the focus to American-centrism. Also, although considered by many to be important, Oscars are not the end-all-be-all indicator of a film's significance. Even if awards are included in the Infobox, which awards and for which categories?
Jim Dunning | talk 23:20, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

It's also inappropriate use of a copyrighted image. An awards parameter was removed from this infobox some time ago (see discussion here). PC78 (talk) 23:25, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:FUC rule #8 states that "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." The current interpretation of that rule is that fair use images cannot be used merely as decorative icons on infoboxes. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 23:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I concur with Jim about the characteristic shifting the focus to American-centrism. In addition, awards can be too varied for a brief summary in the infobox. If you've come across articles in which you thought it was difficult to discern what awards it won, including Oscars, perhaps the lead section or the Awards sections could be revised to reflect this better. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:38, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Although I'm in the odd position of having just asked for an addition to the infobox myself (see #TCM database above), I also agree that adding either an awards section to the infobox or the Academy Award icon is unwarranted. For the latter, it won't pass muster for fair use, and for the former, it will just get much too complicated. The infobox is fairly stuffed at this point - let's leave something to include in the article! Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 00:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Category:Academy Award winners does group those movies, and it does it better than an infobox could. --Qyd (talk) 02:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Home Video releases

I really think that the infobox should comment on home video releases for movies. This is pretty relevant information for anybody interested in a film and who may want to watch it.--SkiDragon (talk) 02:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that's necessary... we already cover such details in Home video sections. We try to keep the infobox limited to primary information about the film, such as when it first came out. In the Home video section, we can specify things like DVD/Blu-Ray and the kinds of features it may have. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 04:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

ISBN

what are the thoughts of adding an ISBN link to this infobox. a lot of movies have them see ISBN 1419828371 and the WorldCat link? β^_command 01:05, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it would be very useful. ISBN is an international standard book number, and I'm not sure how widespread their use on films is or will become. In any case, the articles are about the film itself, not about any one particular instancing of the film, in a DVD or tape - not to mention that different versions would probably have different ISBN's, just as in book publishing, which actually makes them somewhat problematic for referencing there.

I'd say no. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 01:11, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

(xpost) Hmm...how would that be able to deal with multiple editions not only in this country, but many other ones? It would need to cover VHS and/or DVD, all the different DVD region releases, and several editions in each region or country for certain films? Is there a unified code per film, or is it on an edition-basis? Because the latter would be a considerable logistical challenge. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 01:13, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I would welcome something like an ISBN for films, but I'm not really sure if there is such thing. I'm not aware of any kind of sorting system available beyond identifying the title, studio, and director. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:16, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I suggested (see above) using the MPAA certificate number (at least for U.S.-made films), but the idea was shot down. — Loadmaster (talk) 01:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit request

{{editprotected}} Can someone please change

! style="font-size: 100%;" align="center" colspan="2" {{!}} '''[http://allmovie.com/cg/avg.dll?p=avg&sql={{{amg_id|}}} All Movie Guide profile]'''

to

! style="font-size: 100%;" align="center" colspan="2" {{!}} '''[http://allmovie.com/cg/avg.dll?p=avg&sql={{{amg_id|}}} Allmovie profile]'''

following a page move to the correct website name? Thanks! PC78 (talk) 17:22, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Done. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:37, 18 March 2008 (UTC)